[HOAX] Isaac CARET - Drones [HOAX]

Outrageo,

That very scenario has rattled around in my head as well. I am a little disheartened that Dr. Edwards has not responded to my email but it is a holiday week here in the U.S. and he has gone back to Georgia Tech as an Associate Professor so he is most likely not at work this week.

As point of clarity and accuracy, Dr. Edwards has already resigned from PARC, he's gone back to teaching as mentioned above.

The number of possibilities of who is actually behind this "project" are limited only by the number of people capable of performing the skills we see executed. That's a HUGE NUMBER.

With any luck at all, Dr. E will respond to my email come Monday and we will at least have some new data to mull over from his perspective, whatever that perspective may be.

Springer...

Originally posted by Springer
With any luck at all, Dr. E will respond to my email come Monday and we will at least have some new data to mull over from his perspective, whatever that perspective may be.

Springer...

Thanks for keeping us up to date on this Springer, hopefully Dr. Evil... er.. Edwards, will send a response e-mail shortly.

Also to 11 11, thanks for compiling that list of image faults, quite interesting and I will trust your analysis for now.

may i remind you back to the first two pictures.

They clearly had EXIF data about this and they pointed out that they were created by PHOTOSHOP ELEMENTS II.

Now who uses PSE to just compress these pics and upload them?

I don't think so.

With all the huge thing and unsupporting witnesses this is a huge fake thing.

Originally posted by Paul the seeker
Now who uses PSE to just compress these pics and upload them?

Lex Lonehood, webmaster of C2C. That's who. We have no evidence that Chad's original photos had problematic EXIF. Do yourself a favor and catch up.

It's also been stated quite clearly by the resident experts that Photoshop Elements is a consumer-level program for menial tasks, and that the more advanced versions of Photoshop would be the most likely tool of a hoaxer.

11 11: I agree, the links you've provided are great. I'm more firmly in the hoax camp than ever (although regarding the post above mine, that doesn't mean EVERYTHING is evidence of a hoax)

[edit on 7-7-2007 by alevar]

Originally posted by alevar


It's also been stated quite clearly by the resident experts that Photoshop Elements is a consumer-level program for menial tasks, and that the more advanced versions of Photoshop would be the most likely tool of a hoaxer.
[edit on 7-7-2007 by alevar]

Not necessarily true. There are many versions of Photoshop that could be used, however it could be shrouded by a more experienced hoaxer if need be. PhotoShop Elements does come with scanners and other types of hardware, so therefore a hoaxer could use it as a tool. Though it really doesn't matter if a mid-range photo-editing program is used, as long as it good enough to fool you. So far someone has done a good job...

Originally posted by Grey Basket

Originally posted by pjslug
Didn't you see the sci-fi channel program, which is now on youtube, about the guy who sold a piece of the roswell craft to a collector who sent it on for rigorous testing by 3 independent labs? Jesse Marcel Jr. even confirmed it was the material he saw originaly. They were filming the documented reports and about to air it when it was suddenly pulled from the air. Subsequently, there were people that were killed over it. So you're right, the government would not let anyone get ahold of the technology but with the recent events of the drone (if real) I have to believe that some sort of disclosure to the public is happening. I don't think it would be more than a few years at most, especially if Steorn releases their free energy device, that all this knowledge is confirmed to the public. George Bush Sr. when head of the CIA was recorded on the phone saying "If the people knew what we have done, they would drag us into the streets and hang us."

This is a new one to me, sounds a little too good to be true too. Would love to see it, please do share.

Here you go:

Just a theory – but it’s mine and I’m sticking with it (at least until new evidence comes along – at which time I reserve the right to bail out to any extent desired).

Have a nice weekend, everyone! You guys on ATS are the best…

07-07-07 - Outrageo

That's all well and good except for one problem... How does it account for the various people that LMH has spoken to that gave her the drone photos? If the Dr. was keeping this confident from everyone, surely he wouldn't have had several people call her and give the interview.

For clarification:

EXIF data is not always useless. YES I already know there are editors, I even posted links to a few earlyer. The point is, the camera used to take the pictures of the drone is capable of uploading the pictures to the computer without going into a editing program, to keep the EXIF data perfect, straight from the camera.

This is what I want the "hoaxer" to do. I want them to upload the image of the drone straight from the camera to their computer hard drive without first going to Adobe or any other program. its that damn simple. Untill then this entire thing is a hoax. If you can not provide the image straight from the camera, you have nothing.

Are you people trying to tell me that he purpously got an EXIF editor just to make his EXIF look fake? No...

On that note, a few pages back, we even tested the EXIF on an image after it is run through Adobe Album 3. Still didn't get the same results the drone images did. This is solid evidence that the photo has been through multiple image editing programs, not just Adobe Album.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


[edit on 7-7-2007 by 11 11]

If I may...
Nice video. Full of ..umm, crap.

A Podiatrist . Really ?

The fragment is "stolen".

Admition of theft.

Then, people die.

How convenient.

Then the video shows Marcel Jr. looking
at the "item" with a microscope.

Is that how he looked at Dad's aluminum,
in '47 ?

Then, Marcel Jr. says "Like the Bake-O-Lite
I saw in '47".

Oh, come on. Was it Bake-O-Lite, or a UFO ?

Then, he says "Results were inconclusive".
What ??

What results ??

He goes on to state, "The screen went black".
I'm familiar with a BSD. NOT a black screen.

His Webmaster is Jason Martel

Where does anyone see proof ??

Curious,
Lex
Posted in the wrong thread.
[edit on 7-7-2007 by Lexion]

[edit on 7-7-2007 by Lexion]

Originally posted by 11 11
Are you people trying to tell me that he purpously got an EXIF editor just to make his EXIF look fake? No...

Nope, I am pointing it out because if you create an image in a CGI renderer but you want people to think it came from a camera you simply add FAKE exif data that matches a camera.

Whitley Streiber actually quoted some "expert" who proclaimed the images REAL because of the exif data! That was IT, his whole "expert opinion" was the exif data showed a certain camera on a certain date/time.

I mean that's just mind boggling to me.

Springer...

And the inconsistancies in the exif can only be evaluated if we test it with the same model camera with the same firmware and same version of all the programs that handle the files. As of now we dont have any idea what programs the image has gone trough, except for the photoshop album that left a tag.
And if someone goes trough all that trouble to fake an image then it's not much of an effort to change the exif data too. And someone who would know to make an image like these would certainly know that the exif data will be checked.
So in conclusion the exif cannot be used as a "smoking gun" to prove anything, one way or another.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
And the inconsistancies in the exif can only be evaluated if we test it with the same model camera with the same firmware and same version of all the programs that handle the files. As of now we dont have any idea what programs the image has gone trough, except for the photoshop album that left a tag.
And if someone goes trough all that trouble to fake an image then it's not much of an effort to change the exif data too. And someone who would know to make an image like these would certainly know that the exif data will be checked.
So in conclusion the exif cannot be used as a "smoking gun" to prove anything, one way or another.

You couldn't be more wrong. I already explained this:

The drone picture I tested was taken from a Minolta Dimage X camera. I found RAW images from the exact same camera:
www.imaging-resource.com...

unaltered original camera image (685K download)

This is an unaltered image from the same camera used to take the drone picture. Key word, unaltered. The very first most important part of this images EXIF data, is this line:

JFIF_APP1 : Exif

Thats all it has. Thats all it should have, because its is unaltered, straight from the camera. The camera created the EXIF data.

Now the drone image, has this:

JFIF_APP1 : Exif
JFIF_APP1 : http
JFIF_APP2 : ICC Profile (offset:18206 size:3151bytes)
JFIF_APP15 : Adobe

This is wrong, this means the image has been altered. This image is not straight from the camera. The camera did not create this EXIF data.


Do you see what I am saying? In order for the images to be concidered real, they must have only "JFIF_APP1 : Exif" thats it, nothing more.

I don't even care if he loads it in an EXIF editor, and tries to change this back to normal (which he cant). As long as it only has "JFIF_APP1 : Exif".

I can't believe I am talking about this, since when does running an image through image editing programs not matter?!?!?!?!

Originally posted by 11 11

Originally posted by PsykoOps
And the inconsistancies in the exif can only be evaluated if we test it with the same model camera with the same firmware and same version of all the programs that handle the files. As of now we dont have any idea what programs the image has gone trough, except for the photoshop album that left a tag.
And if someone goes trough all that trouble to fake an image then it's not much of an effort to change the exif data too. And someone who would know to make an image like these would certainly know that the exif data will be checked.
So in conclusion the exif cannot be used as a "smoking gun" to prove anything, one way or another.

You couldn't be more wrong. I already explained this:

The drone picture I tested was taken from a Minolta Dimage X camera. I found RAW images from the exact same camera:
www.imaging-resource.com...

unaltered original camera image (685K download)

This is an unaltered image from the same camera used to take the drone picture. Key word, unaltered. The very first most important part of this images EXIF data, is this line:

JFIF_APP1 : Exif

Thats all it has. Thats all it should have, because its is unaltered, straight from the camera. The camera created the EXIF data.

Now the drone image, has this:

JFIF_APP1 : Exif
JFIF_APP1 : http
JFIF_APP2 : ICC Profile (offset:18206 size:3151bytes)
JFIF_APP15 : Adobe

This is wrong, this means the image has been altered. This image is not straight from the camera. The camera did not create this EXIF data.


Do you see what I am saying? In order for the images to be concidered real, they must have only "JFIF_APP1 : Exif" thats it, nothing more.

I don't even care if he loads it in an EXIF editor, and tries to change this back to normal (which he cant). As long as it only has "JFIF_APP1 : Exif".

I can't believe I am talking about this, since when does running an image through image editing programs not matter?!?!?!?!

I perfectly agree that this raises suspicion yet again as to the authenticity of this whole thing, but let's face it, it cannot be considered consolidated, substantial and conclusive evidence of anything.

As I've stated before, I feel this is very likely a hoax, and you've done a lot to try and prove that. The problem is not what you're saying, it's the fact that it's just not going to be enough to sway the believers. EXIF data is interesting, and useful, but not conclusive, no matter how much you keep suggesting it is.

You're just going to have to agree to disagree with some people on here about the EXIF situation. The issue has been highlighted and researched as much as possible. Interesting? Yes! Smoking Gun? Nope. It's just impossible. The "smoking gun" is going to be finding the guy that created the whole hoax.

[edit on 7-7-2007 by corda]

What software did you use to view the exif data btw?

Originally posted by PsykoOps
11 11
Just something that I observed:

Now see this:
earthfiles.com...
And look at picture 0015, see the shadow yet?

Check the shadow cast by the lowest crossbeam on the utility pole (in the full image) and you'll see the sun angle is almost horizontal, so the lack of a shadow isn't conclusive.

Originally posted by Springer
I am so impressed by "saldfingers'" work I thought a link to the full image was worthwhile;

i9.tinypic.com...

The guy is really getting his chops down. I can't help but feel for him when he puts these images out there and people (typically the "True Believers") immediately proclaim they would instantly know they were CGI if they were presented as "real images", I call BRAVO SIERRA on that!

Springer...

Not bad... but the clouds in the far distance are in better focus than the 'Chad drone' in the middle distance and depth-of-field just doesn't work that way.

Originally posted by PersonFromPorlock
Check the shadow cast by the lowest crossbeam on the utility pole (in the full image) and you'll see the sun angle is almost horizontal, so the lack of a shadow isn't conclusive.

You are right almost horizontal, but it is not. The sun is calculated to being 20 to 16 degrees above the horizon meaning there is going to be a 20 to 16 degree angle on almost all shadows. There should be a shadow in the blue area I pointed too.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Even if the sun angle was perfectly horizontal, there would STILL be a shadow to the immediate left of the arm, but there isnt. The no shadow explination still hasn't been debunked. No matter what time of day, there should be a shadow under or to the left of the arm..

[edit on 7-7-2007 by 11 11]

Originally posted by PsykoOps
What software did you use to view the exif data btw?

www.takenet.or.jp...

I posted that link earlyer in this thread.

Originally posted by Springer

Originally posted by 11 11
Are you people trying to tell me that he purpously got an EXIF editor just to make his EXIF look fake? No...

Nope, I am pointing it out because if you create an image in a CGI renderer but you want people to think it came from a camera you simply add FAKE exif data that matches a camera.

Whitley Streiber actually quoted some "expert"

who proclaimed the images REAL because of the exif data!

That was IT, his whole "expert opinion" was the exif data showed a certain camera on a certain date/time.

I mean that's just mind boggling to me.

Springer...

We have had several hundred little supposed "exif" type events so far that we have examined, right? Well my god, do you have any idea the work one person or a team would have to do to make all this look as perfect as it does? How many hoaxes went on this long that weren't debunked? I think some people here should start looking at this from the other side of the fence as "what if it is real" rather than "why its not."

I can't believe I am talking about this, since when does running an image through image editing programs not matter?!?!?!?!

Once again, you must not know your software, because you can import directly from your camera into Adobe Album, and therefore it would add that to the EXIF data, but the data also still says the camera name right next to it. And why are you now starting to lie and say it was from Adobe when you know very well that the EXIF said Adobe Album?????? You can't manipulate a CGI drone in ADOBE ALBUM!! Telling half truths and lies doesn't help any of us.

[edit on 7/7/2007 by pjslug]